At the conclusion of the chapter "The Power of Peers," the author discusses academic achievement disparities between Asian - American and African American and Latino students. To best explain academic disengagement from Latino and African American students, the author references Fordham and Ogbu's article "Black Student's School Success: Coping with the 'Burden of 'Acting White.''" The author further contends that Black and Latino students do not hold education in the same esteem as Asian students. From my understanding of both concepts, the author has misunderstood both the definition of "acting white" and the importance Latino and Black students place on education.
First, the author argues "In many minority peer groups, scholastic success is equated with 'selling out' one's cultural identity, as some sort of surrender to the control of the White, middle class." Later, the author directly references a portion of Fordham and Ogbu's article to further define "acting white." Ogbu and Fordham argue Black students (and to a further degree subordinate minority students) disengage and disassociate themselves from academic achievement due to America's history of not properly compensating African Americans who have academically succeeded. In essence, Fordham and Ogbu argue subordinate minorities construct White oppositional identities that associate academic achievement with White and European oppression.
It is important to consider, Fordham and Ogbu's article concerning the theory of "acting white" face great backlash and has been "disproven" many times (Horvat, E. and Lewis, K. (2003). Reassessing the "Burden of 'Acting White'" and Pittman, A. (2009) Whited Out: Unique Perspectives on Black Identity and Honors Achievement are the first two that come to mind). Moreover, due to the great backlash, Ogbu reproduced an essay in 2002 to answer the critiques of his original theory on "acting white." Nevertheless, the critical shortcoming of Fordham and Ogbu's theory on Black academic achievement and the role of "acting white," is that it fails to critique the Eurocentric curricula Black students are forcibly "taught" from. As Grantham and Ford argue in their article "Beyond self-concept and self-esteem: Racial identity and gifted African American students" Black students disengage from their studies because they do not appear in the curricula. The two further their argument to state students, regardless of ethnic background and achievement level, are disinterested and unmotivated by personally irrelevant curricula and consequently underachievement. In essence, Black students do not associate academic achievement with white as much as they associate their education is white. For more on this idea I suggest reading Carter G. Woodson's "The Mis-Education of the Negro."
Roslyn Mickelson and Theresa Perry both explain Black students connect academic achievement with their Black identity. Perry references the learning habits of past Black scholars like Malcolm X and Frederick Douglass and notes their learning styles of self-education to overcome White oppression is the "African American philosophy of education." Similarly, Mickelson notes the Black students value education and view it as a method of social mobility, just as the author of "The Power of Peers" notes Asian students view education as a method of social mobility. However, the author incorrectly associates a healthy Black identity as one that is perpetuated by the mass media and emphasizes and "glorifies low-income African-American peer culture." Maulana Karenga (in addition to countless other Black studies scholars) would argue a healthy Black identity is one that has been grounded in Afrocentricity and is fully aware of the positive aspects and history of Black culture and scholars; in addition to, how Black culture has evolved since its interaction with oppression and European culture. Karenga and others who share his idea of a positive Black identity argue academic achievement is a vital component of a positive Black identity.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Economic status vs. Single parents
I've continued to think about comparing low economic status and single parenting and how those affect a child. Obviously, living with a single parent presents can create many disadvantages for a child, economically and psychologically. Interestingly, teenagers actually have a harder time adjusting to divorce than younger kids due to an inability to open up and discuss their feelings: thus, divorce that occurs during adolescence can have a lasting effect. (http://www.psychpage.com/family/divorce/childrenadjust.html) However, I'd still maintain that the disadvantages faced by the children of single parents are no as bad as the disadvantages faced by poor families.
First of all, it's important to note that most single parents are usually lower income. Many single parents (usually mothers) were never married (as opposed to divorced) and have a child due to an unplanned pregnancy. This can make it difficult to distinguish between what issues are caused by lack of time (because there's only one adult) or lack of money (because there's only one source of income). There's a lot of crossover between these two categories, and that's where the crux of my thinking comes in: many of the disadvantages that a child faces by only having one parent disappear if the parent is economically successful. And conversely, many of the same disadvantages a child of a single parent usually has appear when a child has both parents present if they are not economically successful.
For example, a child from a lower income bracket will almost never perform as well in school as a child from a higher income bracket. This can be attributed to many factors; mostly that a poorer child has more important things to worry about than grades, such as food and safety (see Maslow's Hierarchy). In addition, a poorer child has fewer opportunities. After all, college costs money, and so do many extracurricular activities.
A poorer child's increased risk of going to jail does seem to be connected to only having one parent. One of the major reasons a teenager starts committing crimes is the combination of an abundance of free time combined with a lack of supervision. Still, this does not account for crimes of desperation that occur from lack of funds.
I think an important thing to do is separate divorced parents from parents who have never been married because children with divorced parents come from all economic backgrounds where as children with a single parent usually come from a poorer background, and thus are at much higher risk to underperform in school or even end up in jail.
I could go on, but I'm curious as to what you guys have to say.
First of all, it's important to note that most single parents are usually lower income. Many single parents (usually mothers) were never married (as opposed to divorced) and have a child due to an unplanned pregnancy. This can make it difficult to distinguish between what issues are caused by lack of time (because there's only one adult) or lack of money (because there's only one source of income). There's a lot of crossover between these two categories, and that's where the crux of my thinking comes in: many of the disadvantages that a child faces by only having one parent disappear if the parent is economically successful. And conversely, many of the same disadvantages a child of a single parent usually has appear when a child has both parents present if they are not economically successful.
For example, a child from a lower income bracket will almost never perform as well in school as a child from a higher income bracket. This can be attributed to many factors; mostly that a poorer child has more important things to worry about than grades, such as food and safety (see Maslow's Hierarchy). In addition, a poorer child has fewer opportunities. After all, college costs money, and so do many extracurricular activities.
A poorer child's increased risk of going to jail does seem to be connected to only having one parent. One of the major reasons a teenager starts committing crimes is the combination of an abundance of free time combined with a lack of supervision. Still, this does not account for crimes of desperation that occur from lack of funds.
I think an important thing to do is separate divorced parents from parents who have never been married because children with divorced parents come from all economic backgrounds where as children with a single parent usually come from a poorer background, and thus are at much higher risk to underperform in school or even end up in jail.
I could go on, but I'm curious as to what you guys have to say.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Parenting through Time and Its Correlation with Juvenile Crime Rates
Hello everyone,
Big title, I know, but bear with me. Following will be my research essay into the above topic. I have done a small bit of research into the history of parenting, and what factors go into a child becoming delinquent or going into crime. Have parental styles softened or hardened, and is that what is leading to further acting-outs? I haven't had much time, but I hope to be able to do more looking into for my larger project.
So without further ado, here it is.
Clark Morningstar
02/11/2012
Honors Tweens and Teens
Short Research Project
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/juvenile-crimes-taking-a-more-serious-turn/911037/
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dncrime/138973409.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-12-juveniles-inside_x.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/08/us/grim-forecast-is-offered-on-rising-juvenile-crime.html
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/ch07.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576076/Violent-youth-crime-up-a-third.html
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00102.htm
http://www.jstor.org/pss/651108
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tjvfox.pdf
All of the above links, and many more that can be found, are devoted to how crime rates are going up amongst juveniles. Considering this, and how juvenile delinquency rates have seemingly and continuously risen in the public spotlight, I asked myself if a differing parental style through the decades has led to the rise in crime rates. And if not the parents, then what other factors were there?
So, I set up an online survey, and branched out to people I knew via Facebook and email. In this survey, I asked questions about the years the respondent grew up in, and the morals or ethics they learned or tried to uphold. I asked about the parents, and the influences they had on the respondent in growing up. I asked about friends and fellow peers, about the society and the media. While six responses hardly constitute a scientifically proven analysis of a hypothesis, it is a beginning to further research and hopefully to conclusive results.
Parenting Through the Years
How to parent has been a question for a long time, and can even be traced back to Mesopotamian parents. Undesirable children could be sold into slavery, but that was considered an act of financial desperation. The children would be sung incantations by their mothers, who feared the crying would wake the gods. As they grew older, the children played with make-shift weapons or household goods to pretend they were adults. Parents were firm in disciplining, but withheld from being harsh. “A poor man does not strike his son a single blow; he treasures him forever (Proverbs from Ki-en-gir, 17)." However, if a teen got out of hand, there were laws in place that would send them packing, literally. "Be it enacted forever and for all future days: If a son says to his father, 'You are not my father,' he can cut off his locks, make him a slave and sell him for money. If a son says to his mother, 'You are not my mother,' she can cut off his locks, turn him out of town, or (at least) drive him away from home, deprive him of citizenship and of inheritance, but his liberty he loses not. If a father says to his son, 'You are not my son,' the latter has to leave house and field and he loses everything. If a mother says to her son, 'You are not my son,' he shall leave house and furniture (A Collection of Mesopotamian Laws, 1)."
Going forward to the Ancient Greeks, it was normal for mothers with unwanted babies to have abortions. Those that were wanted would receive toys during sacred ceremonies, which would then be offered to the gods when they entered adulthood. Girls stayed at home until they grew to marrying age. The education of boys was considered very important, and would start their education from an early age. Here is a Greek writer, speaking of a Spartan practice for social education. "The children would also come to the public messes, and were taken there as though to schools of modesty. They would listen to political discussions and would see amusements worthy of free men. They themselves would learn to play and joke without rudeness, and not get angry when being joked at. For it was thought to be a specifically [Spartan] virtue to put up with jokes, but if one found this intolerable, one could simply ask the jester to stop and he would comply (Lycurgus, 12)."
In Ancient Roman culture, fathers made the important decisions in terms of abortions or exposing the child if unwanted or if there were any abnormalities. By the later part of the empire, it was considered murder however for infanticide. Any children that were wanted would be given a bag of charms to protect them from evil. And while childhood lasted until thirteen for girls, and fourteen for boys, discipline was incredibly harsh. But some, like the writer Quintilian, objected to such treatment. "But that boys should suffer corporal punishment, though it be a received custom, and Chrysippus makes no objection to it, I by no means approve; first, because it is a disgrace and a punishment for slaves, and in reality (as will be evident if you imagine the age changed) an affront; secondly, because, if a boy’s disposition be so abject as not to be amended by reproof, he will be hardened, like the worst of slaves, even to stripes; and lastly, because, if one who regularly exacts his tasks be with him, there will not be the least need of any such chastisement (Institutes of Rhetoric, 1.3.14)."
In Imperial China, discipline could go either way, but a middle ground was advocated by Yan Zhitui saying, "But as soon as a baby can recognize facial expressions and understand approval and disapproval, training should be begun so that he will do what he is told to do and stop when so ordered. After a few years of this, punishment with the bamboo can be minimized, as parental strictness and dignity mingled with parental love will lead the boys and girls to a feeling of respect and caution and give rise to filial piety. I have noticed about me that wherever there is love without training this result is never achieved. Children eat, drink, speak, and act as they please. Instead of needed prohibitions, they receive praise; instead of urgent reprimands, they receive smiles. Even when children are old enough to learn, such treatment is still regarded at the proper method. Only after the child has formed proud and arrogant habits do they try to control him. But one may whip the child to death, and he will still not be respectful, while the growing anger of the parents only increases his resentment. After he grows up, such a child at last becomes nothing but a scoundrel (Household Instructions.)."
Advice could be bad as well. John Locke wrote in his 1693 treatise Some Thoughts concerning Education states, "I will also advise his feet to be washed every day in cold water, and to have his shoes so thin, that they might leak and let in water. It is recommendable for its cleanliness; but that which I aim at in it, is health; and therefore I limit it not precisely to any time of the day.” Perhaps he should have stayed in economics, and I bet his son died of pneumonia.
Jumping ahead to 1928, John B. Watson wrote in Psychological Care of Infant and Child, "Never hug and kiss them, never let them sit in your lap. If you must, kiss them once on the forehead when they say good night. Shake hands with them in the morning. Give them a pat on the head if they have made an extraordinary good job of a difficult task.” It's a good thing Adolf was born before this, or we would have had an even worse basket-case. No pun intended.
Now, speaking of the surveys I collected, I had varying dates, but not various answers, or any real violence tendencies. To fix this, it would be better to be able to ask those in a juvenile facility, along with just more regular respondents. Coming back to the point, I will first begin with Janet, who was born in 1928. She grew up with both parents, and at sixteen went to work at a munitions factory during World War II and pretended to be eighteen to get the job. She considered her parents to be mixed in terms of their parental styles, as her mother would kind, and her Austrian father was a tad harsh. She was heavily influenced by the morals and ethics from her parents, and did little to contradict them, with the exception of listening to Jazz on the radio, which her parents did not like. Not one hand was raised in violence in her household, though harsh were known to be spoken.
Next was Ken, born in 1947 here in Philadelphia. He considered his parents to also have been incredibly influential on his moral development, and tried to emulate their caring and non violent ways. He described the society of the 50's to have a 'strong moral code,' that was expected to be followed.
This idea could be doubled by the next contestant, Dan. He was born only a year later, though on the opposite side of the country. He grew up in the woods, and laughed when I got to the question in the survey of "Did you ever think of bringing a weapon to school?" He explained his mirth by describing his living in the country, and most every boy had a pocket knife, but no one ever considered using it harmfully. He described to me that kids during that time never considered violence, and those that even "looked like a criminal," were ostracized by the rest of the student body. "Nobody liked the guys that would leave the closed-campus school at lunch and walk to the corner store to smoke." He also considered his parents to be heavily influential on his development of morals. His father was an ordained minister, and he and his siblings were expected to follow most of the parents' views, however, they let them ask questions, and think independently, and investigate other possibilities.
Next is Holly, born in 1952. She helped around the house when she wasn't in school. She said of her parents, "I would say strict, not harsh. But they were loving and fair, and always presented a united front." Her parents were Catholic, and she is today, "But because I want to be, not because they 'made' me." They were not violent, and she tries to emulate their example. She listened to music they frowned upon, as well as some other things. "I ditched school, sassed my folks sometimes, [and] disobeyed occasionally, but nothing really major."
Finally, there is Greg, born in 1974, that 70's Kid! He worked with his Dad in construction as a teen, but said there were no detrimental effects to it. "It was all good." His violent tendencies included shooting birds and frogs with his BB Gun, or wrestling with his brother, though not much else, and the limit to any crime was once stealing a pack of chewing gum. His parents were not violent, and would occasionally get into a verbal argument, but "solved their problems peacefully."
I had one incomplete survey done by an unnamed person born in 1993. He/she states that the parenting style was harsh, and that they were violent in a way. "They were vary violent but I never reacted violently... just sad." While little else was mentioned in the survey, this is the closest I got to responses I needed.
Conclusions
It's hard to draw much any conclusion from such limited amount of data, which more research and more responses will hopefully fill in. But so far, the data shows that the 'mixed' parenting styles allow for mostly non-violent individuals through the differing years of growing up.
Link to survey: http://app.fluidsurveys.com/
Words: 1,897
Work Cited
King, L.W. (2005). "The Code of Hammurabi: Translated by L. W. King". Yale University.
Retrieved February 11, 2012.
Locke, John. "Locke, John - Some Thoughts Concerning Education, 54 (1693) | WIST
Quotations." WIST. Web. 12 Feb. 2012.
Lycurgus. "12." Lycurgus: A Translation. Trans. Charles Melville Moss. S.l.: S.N., 1922. Print.
Quintilian. Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory; Or, Education of an Orator. In Twelve Books.
Trans. J. S. Watson. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1895. Print.
Watson, John B. "Psychological Care of Infant and Child (Open Library)." Welcome to Open
Library (Open Library). Web. 12 Feb. 2012. http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13968750M/Psychological_care_of_infant_and_child>.
Zhitui, Yan. "Yanshi Jiaxun - The Family Instructions of Master Yan." History - China Culture.
Web. 11 Feb. 2012.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Following up Thursday's discussion
To follow up our discussion
from Thursday regarding the moral development of teenagers, I thought I’d post
a few more thoughts about the Amish teens since we didn’t get too much time to
talk about them.
I think a good place to start
is with the role religion plays in the lives of adolescents. As a time for
figuring out one’s identity (whatever that may mean) religion is something that
teens find themselves thinking about. Sometimes it is a matter of becoming more
engaged with their religion, and other times it’s a matter of either
experimenting with a new one or just giving up on it in general. In a way, I
think this illustrates Marcia’s theories of identity foreclosure to identity
achievement. The Amish teens, during Rumspringa experience this phase in which
they are to decide whether or not to accept and conform to the lifestyle
they’ve always known or to deviate it from it. I wonder how we can we tie the
way in which we develop morally (from Kohlberg’s theories) to the way
adolescents engage with religion. I believe Kohlberg does mention that religion
shapes the ways in which moral thinking develops, but I wonder to what extent
and what other factors influence this phase during adolescence.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
It Starts with Lip Gloss
This is an article from the NY Times about affluent tweens and teens (Ok girls) whose parents (Ok, mothers) bring them into NYC to learn how to do their makeup. It raises interesting questions for me about parental influence along with peer influence and how expectations for behaviors at various ages change over time. Are the parents responding to the peer culture or creating the peer culture for their children. What do you think?
Here's the link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/fashion/it-starts-with-lip-gloss-grade-schoolers-and-makeup.html
Here's the link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/fashion/it-starts-with-lip-gloss-grade-schoolers-and-makeup.html
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Teenage Driving Debate
http://seriousaccidents.com/legal-advice/top-causes-of-car-accidents/
Last week in class, the controversy surrounding teenage driving was discussed. Specifically we questioned how accurate studies that targeted teen drivers were. In doing so, Professor Kuriloff brought attention to the idea of new drivers versus teen drivers.
In regards to this idea, I believe that new drivers, not specifically teenage drivers are subject to a higher risk of car accidents. It just so happens that teenage drivers are very inexperienced drivers, simply because they have not had the opportunity to be on the road. Critics may argue that more practice and a specific requirement for number of practice hours is the answer; however, such an argument is flawed. The attached articles provide evidence to refute this claim. Michael Pines, a prominent San Diego Personal Injury Lawyer, took the liberty of researching the top 25 causes of car accidents. Such research demonstrated that teenage drivers fell to the number 8 spot, significantly lower than most people anticipate. Furthermore, some of the top 5 causes were Distracted Driving, Night Driving, and Rain. All of these causes are not exclusive to a person's teenage years. Age does not control the weather, and even the most alert drivers are at times distracted. With this notion in mind, experience in all of these situations is necessary for the safety of all drivers. I believe that the real answer to the teenage/new driver dilemma is to create a driver's test that simulates these particular environments. Until this test is passed, any driver, regardless of age, should not receive their license.
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/are-you-a-good-driver/
This article also provides evidence to support the notion that adolescent behavior. In fact, it states "A nationally representative sample of more than 800 crashes involving teenage drivers shows that almost two-thirds were due not to reckless behavior like speeding or joyriding but to three novice driving mistakes: failing to scan the road, misjudging driving conditions and becoming distracted." Once again, these causes have nothing to do with the development of the teenage brain or the risky behavior of teenagers.
Last week in class, the controversy surrounding teenage driving was discussed. Specifically we questioned how accurate studies that targeted teen drivers were. In doing so, Professor Kuriloff brought attention to the idea of new drivers versus teen drivers.
In regards to this idea, I believe that new drivers, not specifically teenage drivers are subject to a higher risk of car accidents. It just so happens that teenage drivers are very inexperienced drivers, simply because they have not had the opportunity to be on the road. Critics may argue that more practice and a specific requirement for number of practice hours is the answer; however, such an argument is flawed. The attached articles provide evidence to refute this claim. Michael Pines, a prominent San Diego Personal Injury Lawyer, took the liberty of researching the top 25 causes of car accidents. Such research demonstrated that teenage drivers fell to the number 8 spot, significantly lower than most people anticipate. Furthermore, some of the top 5 causes were Distracted Driving, Night Driving, and Rain. All of these causes are not exclusive to a person's teenage years. Age does not control the weather, and even the most alert drivers are at times distracted. With this notion in mind, experience in all of these situations is necessary for the safety of all drivers. I believe that the real answer to the teenage/new driver dilemma is to create a driver's test that simulates these particular environments. Until this test is passed, any driver, regardless of age, should not receive their license.
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/are-you-a-good-driver/
This article also provides evidence to support the notion that adolescent behavior. In fact, it states "A nationally representative sample of more than 800 crashes involving teenage drivers shows that almost two-thirds were due not to reckless behavior like speeding or joyriding but to three novice driving mistakes: failing to scan the road, misjudging driving conditions and becoming distracted." Once again, these causes have nothing to do with the development of the teenage brain or the risky behavior of teenagers.
Monday, February 6, 2012
A "Mind" Boggling Debate
Hey guys,
Just some food for thought...last Thursday I left the room feeling really confused. I walked into class ready to argue that because the teenage brain was not fully developed, teenagers don't always act rationally. However, after listening to the discussion in class I started to wonder, does the brain influence the mind/ our actions? Or does the mind influence the actions and re-actions of our brains?
If the brain can control our motor and sensory functions, doesn't it have the capability of controlling our psychological views as well?
Sigmund Freud separated the unconscious mind into three different layers, the id, the ego, and the super-ego. The id is considered to be the irrational and emotional part of the mind. In an article I was reading (http://wilderdom.com/personality/L8-4StructureMindIdEgoSuperego.html) the id was referred to as the primitive mind. The ego is responsible for the rational part of the mind through which one reacts to the world. The super-ego is considered the moral part of the mind. What if these divisions of the mind are controlled by the divisions of the brain?
Neuroscience shows that the brain can be separated into, again the "primitive" brain and then a superior and more complex are known as the neocortex. The primitive brain consists of the medulla oblongata and the cerebellum which control your basic physical functions such as movement and respiration. However the primitive brain also contains structures such as the amygdala, the hippocampus and the pons. The amygdala is responsible for producing emotions, especially fear. The hippocampus deals with memories and learning. The pons deals with levels of arousal, consciousness, and sleep.
So your primitive brain is said to produce feelings and emotions. How does this spur a response? Neuroscientists aren't sure. However the neocortex, specifically the frontal lobe, is responsible for planning and executing decision making processes. Maybe the interaction between the primitive brain (the id) and the neocortex (the ego) are responsible for our psychological responses?
^^ That's just a discussion of the different structures of the brain that may influence our thought processes. Throw in the different chemical neurotransmitters, such as serotonin and dopamine, that have an affect on our emotions and that makes this debate exponentially more complex.
Nushi
Just some food for thought...last Thursday I left the room feeling really confused. I walked into class ready to argue that because the teenage brain was not fully developed, teenagers don't always act rationally. However, after listening to the discussion in class I started to wonder, does the brain influence the mind/ our actions? Or does the mind influence the actions and re-actions of our brains?
If the brain can control our motor and sensory functions, doesn't it have the capability of controlling our psychological views as well?
Sigmund Freud separated the unconscious mind into three different layers, the id, the ego, and the super-ego. The id is considered to be the irrational and emotional part of the mind. In an article I was reading (http://wilderdom.com/personality/L8-4StructureMindIdEgoSuperego.html) the id was referred to as the primitive mind. The ego is responsible for the rational part of the mind through which one reacts to the world. The super-ego is considered the moral part of the mind. What if these divisions of the mind are controlled by the divisions of the brain?
Neuroscience shows that the brain can be separated into, again the "primitive" brain and then a superior and more complex are known as the neocortex. The primitive brain consists of the medulla oblongata and the cerebellum which control your basic physical functions such as movement and respiration. However the primitive brain also contains structures such as the amygdala, the hippocampus and the pons. The amygdala is responsible for producing emotions, especially fear. The hippocampus deals with memories and learning. The pons deals with levels of arousal, consciousness, and sleep.
So your primitive brain is said to produce feelings and emotions. How does this spur a response? Neuroscientists aren't sure. However the neocortex, specifically the frontal lobe, is responsible for planning and executing decision making processes. Maybe the interaction between the primitive brain (the id) and the neocortex (the ego) are responsible for our psychological responses?
^^ That's just a discussion of the different structures of the brain that may influence our thought processes. Throw in the different chemical neurotransmitters, such as serotonin and dopamine, that have an affect on our emotions and that makes this debate exponentially more complex.
Nushi
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Epigenetics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp1bZEUgqVI&list=UUZYTClx2T1of7BRZ86-8fow&index=5&feature=plcp
This video talks about Epigenetics, which literally means 'above genetics.' Epigenetics does not change your actual genes, but it decides how the genes are expressed. The video explains exactly what the science behind Epigenetics is and how it relates to the long lost twin scenario. He also talks about passing down things such as the tendency to smoke, or get a face tattoo as examples. He explains the old idea of intelligence being effected by your genes. He says you have to look at Epigenetics and social factors when looking at intelligence, not just genes.
This video talks about Epigenetics, which literally means 'above genetics.' Epigenetics does not change your actual genes, but it decides how the genes are expressed. The video explains exactly what the science behind Epigenetics is and how it relates to the long lost twin scenario. He also talks about passing down things such as the tendency to smoke, or get a face tattoo as examples. He explains the old idea of intelligence being effected by your genes. He says you have to look at Epigenetics and social factors when looking at intelligence, not just genes.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Development of Morals in Adolescents
This post has been deleted by author due to the link already being in the curriculum.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
The Teenage Brain
I mentioned an article by National Geographic in class today, that I want to start out with in this post because I think it offers a different perspective on the teen brain's "immaturity". The link is right here for you to read http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs-text .
First of all the article is leaning towards an adult, most likely parent audience and it's written for a magazine just to put it in perspective. So to give you a brief summary of the article, the article is presenting a different perspective to the "negative" qualities that put teens at risk. The argument is that risk-taking, thrill-seeking, and the like are not a result of an immature brain but are evolutionary benefits for teenagers and help them to undertake a large number of experiences when they're mind is developing connections and to take risks like leaving the house that will benefit them as adults. One of the first studies the article uses as an example is a light test that was given to ten year olds, teens, and adults. Teens were able to preform almost as well as adults, if offered a reward, the difference is that they had to push harder on the executive areas of their brains, which adults could do more automatically. The study can be interpreted to mean that the immaturity of the brain does effect teenagers, but it can be overcome if they are given incentives, especially when they are offered rewards. I don't know about you, but that doesn't make teenagers seem immature to me, only disadvantaged but able to overcome if given reason to, and since we've created this life stage for them that cuts them off from being adults, how can we expect them to work harder to think like them.
Also towards the end of the article is something we didn't spend as much time on in class, with adult vs. peer relationships. They mentioned some studies showing that the brain reacts to peer exclusion similarly to threats of existence, which sounds rather extreme but when you think about having connections is a very huge resource when entering the adult world so this concern over having lots of peer connections is necessary for their survival. Unfortunately they don't go into these studies much...wonder why...but it does bring up the question of how important it is to have peer relationships. My mom's always told me you need friends of all age groups, older people for experience, peers to relate to, and younger people for when your older friends die.
So there's some starting points off of today's class, I apologize for the Nat Geo's appeal to all ages article, but I think it gives a different outlook on "immaturity" that I think should be considered.
Have a wonderful weekend everyone.
First of all the article is leaning towards an adult, most likely parent audience and it's written for a magazine just to put it in perspective. So to give you a brief summary of the article, the article is presenting a different perspective to the "negative" qualities that put teens at risk. The argument is that risk-taking, thrill-seeking, and the like are not a result of an immature brain but are evolutionary benefits for teenagers and help them to undertake a large number of experiences when they're mind is developing connections and to take risks like leaving the house that will benefit them as adults. One of the first studies the article uses as an example is a light test that was given to ten year olds, teens, and adults. Teens were able to preform almost as well as adults, if offered a reward, the difference is that they had to push harder on the executive areas of their brains, which adults could do more automatically. The study can be interpreted to mean that the immaturity of the brain does effect teenagers, but it can be overcome if they are given incentives, especially when they are offered rewards. I don't know about you, but that doesn't make teenagers seem immature to me, only disadvantaged but able to overcome if given reason to, and since we've created this life stage for them that cuts them off from being adults, how can we expect them to work harder to think like them.
Also towards the end of the article is something we didn't spend as much time on in class, with adult vs. peer relationships. They mentioned some studies showing that the brain reacts to peer exclusion similarly to threats of existence, which sounds rather extreme but when you think about having connections is a very huge resource when entering the adult world so this concern over having lots of peer connections is necessary for their survival. Unfortunately they don't go into these studies much...wonder why...but it does bring up the question of how important it is to have peer relationships. My mom's always told me you need friends of all age groups, older people for experience, peers to relate to, and younger people for when your older friends die.
So there's some starting points off of today's class, I apologize for the Nat Geo's appeal to all ages article, but I think it gives a different outlook on "immaturity" that I think should be considered.
Have a wonderful weekend everyone.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Middle Child Syndrome
http://dft.ba/-middlechildsyndrome
One topic about which I really wanted to talk did not talk much about was the birth order ideas that the article brought up. Something that I personally have always heard about and wondered about the validity of was the idea of the "middle child syndrome." The article did not delve into this at all. I could not find any concrete data about the validity. I did, however, find an interesting blog talking about way to prevent one's children from suffering from such a syndrome. What do you think about the validity of "middle child syndrome?" What do you think of the solutions that the writer of the article suggests?
One topic about which I really wanted to talk did not talk much about was the birth order ideas that the article brought up. Something that I personally have always heard about and wondered about the validity of was the idea of the "middle child syndrome." The article did not delve into this at all. I could not find any concrete data about the validity. I did, however, find an interesting blog talking about way to prevent one's children from suffering from such a syndrome. What do you think about the validity of "middle child syndrome?" What do you think of the solutions that the writer of the article suggests?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)